Grounded PA-31's????
nasa your PT6 overhaul costs concerned me. I didn't think I was dwelling that far in the long distant past!
So, I did a little homework ....... a colleague has a Pratt's, USA/Canada strip down overhaul quote on a first life PT6A-114A with 3,500 hours since new. US$126,000 total overhaul, repair and re work quote, which includes replacement of 58 CT blades (at $350 each less discount) and 58 rivets, damaged by sulfidation.
Email me for the overseas contact details.
So, I did a little homework ....... a colleague has a Pratt's, USA/Canada strip down overhaul quote on a first life PT6A-114A with 3,500 hours since new. US$126,000 total overhaul, repair and re work quote, which includes replacement of 58 CT blades (at $350 each less discount) and 58 rivets, damaged by sulfidation.
Email me for the overseas contact details.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Caloundra. Qld. Australia
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
torres [quote]sorry torres, but that’s a fallacy, and I don’t care how you cut it, it aint going to happen…..You may be able to cite one or two instances where it has, but I’ll cite you a dam sit more where it hasn’t<hr></blockquote>
The two PT6A-42's I mentioned in an earlier post, I just pulled the file out of the drawer on the R/H side of my desk to ensure I get this right, R/H Engine USD$359,523.02 - L/H Engine USD$326,905.61
This is the edit.....Direct from the quotes:.....P/No 3123131-02 CT Blades 58 ea (not 57 <img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> ) USD$46,023.00 (or USD$793.50 ea) Loss of coating/tip rub.....
[ 12 February 2002: Message edited by: nasa ]</p>
The two PT6A-42's I mentioned in an earlier post, I just pulled the file out of the drawer on the R/H side of my desk to ensure I get this right, R/H Engine USD$359,523.02 - L/H Engine USD$326,905.61
This is the edit.....Direct from the quotes:.....P/No 3123131-02 CT Blades 58 ea (not 57 <img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> ) USD$46,023.00 (or USD$793.50 ea) Loss of coating/tip rub.....
[ 12 February 2002: Message edited by: nasa ]</p>
Well, those -42's must have had a hard life! You sure someone didn't wind back the speedo? 
I offered to give you a contact if you email me..... If he can't save you real bucks I'll buy you a carton of XXXX. <img src="frown.gif" border="0">
If he saves you real brass, you owe me. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
I offered to give you a contact if you email me..... If he can't save you real bucks I'll buy you a carton of XXXX. <img src="frown.gif" border="0">
If he saves you real brass, you owe me. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Usually Australia
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NASA,
I think you are drawing the wrong conclusions suggesting that turbines are not cost effective.
Your clients have experienced some appalling overhaul bills that may be attributed, not to the fact they these engines are turbines, but to the way they have been abused. My organization has operated turbine aircraft PT-6, TPE-331 and JT-15 equipped for the past twenty odd years. Although we have occasionally smarted when reviewing HSI or overhaul accounts we have not experienced anything like you describe.
Our -41/42 engines had over 17,000 hours each when we disposed of the aircraft and the last overhauls were still cost effective. Two recent -114 overhauls were under $USD 135K and 130K respectively. The HSI on both those engines required no engine shop visit and were completed in a day at the hangar. Two -60A's were overhauled at 5000 hours and at a cost of $USD186,000 and $USD165,000 each. The HSI's on those two engines carried out at 3,500 hours were around $35,000 each.
Turbine engines such as the PT6 variety probably cost about $USD 1million each. Any operator faced with the bills you suggest should look very carefully at his maintenance procedures, operating procedures, check and training and crewing. Pilots should be well disciplined, experienced and hold the operators interests (and their jobs) to heart. ‘Second place' operators should leave the industry and try farming.
And:
[quote] "just as a matter of interest, when does a new aircraft from the factory, become a used aircraft, which in your opinion, we should all steer clear of?????"<hr></blockquote>
That is a matter for the buyer. New aircraft come with factory warranties and the option to participate in maintenance service plans. Such options provide the operator with firm DOC's. A used aircraft with a partial warranty may be an option if the buyer wishes to take immediate delivery and enjoy factory support. An older aircraft may provide a cost effective alternative if the pre-purchase inspections reveal all the good and bad points and the price is negotiated accordingly. Of the past four aircraft we purchased, three were new and one was low time used. A HSI was completed as a pre-purchase agreement at the sellers expense!
A properly maintained and serviced turbine aircraft should have a life-span of ten to fifteen years and at least recover somewhere near the initial purchase price at resale.
I think you are drawing the wrong conclusions suggesting that turbines are not cost effective.
Your clients have experienced some appalling overhaul bills that may be attributed, not to the fact they these engines are turbines, but to the way they have been abused. My organization has operated turbine aircraft PT-6, TPE-331 and JT-15 equipped for the past twenty odd years. Although we have occasionally smarted when reviewing HSI or overhaul accounts we have not experienced anything like you describe.
Our -41/42 engines had over 17,000 hours each when we disposed of the aircraft and the last overhauls were still cost effective. Two recent -114 overhauls were under $USD 135K and 130K respectively. The HSI on both those engines required no engine shop visit and were completed in a day at the hangar. Two -60A's were overhauled at 5000 hours and at a cost of $USD186,000 and $USD165,000 each. The HSI's on those two engines carried out at 3,500 hours were around $35,000 each.
Turbine engines such as the PT6 variety probably cost about $USD 1million each. Any operator faced with the bills you suggest should look very carefully at his maintenance procedures, operating procedures, check and training and crewing. Pilots should be well disciplined, experienced and hold the operators interests (and their jobs) to heart. ‘Second place' operators should leave the industry and try farming.
And:
[quote] "just as a matter of interest, when does a new aircraft from the factory, become a used aircraft, which in your opinion, we should all steer clear of?????"<hr></blockquote>
That is a matter for the buyer. New aircraft come with factory warranties and the option to participate in maintenance service plans. Such options provide the operator with firm DOC's. A used aircraft with a partial warranty may be an option if the buyer wishes to take immediate delivery and enjoy factory support. An older aircraft may provide a cost effective alternative if the pre-purchase inspections reveal all the good and bad points and the price is negotiated accordingly. Of the past four aircraft we purchased, three were new and one was low time used. A HSI was completed as a pre-purchase agreement at the sellers expense!
A properly maintained and serviced turbine aircraft should have a life-span of ten to fifteen years and at least recover somewhere near the initial purchase price at resale.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dragchute
Thank you, that is exactly my experience with operating those turbines too. . .As for buying them used, no problems either as long as you have done your research and homework properly, not just on the aircraft but its provenance ie the chain of ownership, who has owned and operated it, where, by what sort of crew and under what conditions.
Used: You get absolutely exactly what you pay for. No more no less.
Never got less than full TBO or full HSI, (except for one prop strike due mysterious "locked" nose locker opening in flight and spitting bags into prop, cracked quill shaft spline) and all the engines still pulling way better than minumum specs before removal. Likewise with pistons including the dreaded GTSIO520.. .It's all to do with how well trained and maintained is the pilot on the end of the power levers. . .The probability that he/she will bend the airframe is pretty low, but the cuppla million dollars worth of engines hanging out there are dead set sitting ducks. . .Pilot maintenance is AS important as engine maintenance. WARNING: One without the other is extremely hazardous to your financial health.
Thank you, that is exactly my experience with operating those turbines too. . .As for buying them used, no problems either as long as you have done your research and homework properly, not just on the aircraft but its provenance ie the chain of ownership, who has owned and operated it, where, by what sort of crew and under what conditions.
Used: You get absolutely exactly what you pay for. No more no less.
Never got less than full TBO or full HSI, (except for one prop strike due mysterious "locked" nose locker opening in flight and spitting bags into prop, cracked quill shaft spline) and all the engines still pulling way better than minumum specs before removal. Likewise with pistons including the dreaded GTSIO520.. .It's all to do with how well trained and maintained is the pilot on the end of the power levers. . .The probability that he/she will bend the airframe is pretty low, but the cuppla million dollars worth of engines hanging out there are dead set sitting ducks. . .Pilot maintenance is AS important as engine maintenance. WARNING: One without the other is extremely hazardous to your financial health.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Caloundra. Qld. Australia
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dragchute….Again, I don’t believe that I at any time have said [quote] that turbines are not cost effective<hr></blockquote>My intention is to highlight the cost that can and more often than not will be associated with the ownership and operation of turbine aircraft.....There are a lot of people out there that would love to own & operate turbine aircraft, and if they venture into such a situation thinking that the cost as put forth by yourself, gaunty & torres is the norm, then they can and will be in for a bloody big shock.....It's one thing to spend AUD$3,000.00 on a cylinder kit for an TIO540J2BD, but it's another entirely to spend USD$46,000.00 on a set of CT Blades for a PT6A-42, and it does happen.
gaunty….I have to say that you have just reached the pinnacle in my estimation if you had all your GTSIO520’s reach TBO without a problem…..Hail to the all conquering operator <img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> .....Not all problems associated with Turbines are due to the operator, and as an example, I site a friend in PNG who would be one of the best operators and with the best maintenance backup, his own, up there, and he had a -34 blow on TO outa Port Moresby.....A PT Blade let go and I swear you could hit a golf ball from the prop flange to the Vane Ring without hitting anything in between.....It had nothing to do with the operation or maintenance, just bloody bad luck.....Have a guess what that little exercise cost him <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
gaunty….I have to say that you have just reached the pinnacle in my estimation if you had all your GTSIO520’s reach TBO without a problem…..Hail to the all conquering operator
<img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> .....Not all problems associated with Turbines are due to the operator, and as an example, I site a friend in PNG who would be one of the best operators and with the best maintenance backup, his own, up there, and he had a -34 blow on TO outa Port Moresby.....A PT Blade let go and I swear you could hit a golf ball from the prop flange to the Vane Ring without hitting anything in between.....It had nothing to do with the operation or maintenance, just bloody bad luck.....Have a guess what that little exercise cost him <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nasa, nasa, nasa,
I am perplexed.
I must laud your motive in conveying to the readers that commiting aviation can bring some nasty and unpleasant surprises.. .But cannot fathom why you persist in frightening the life out of everybody by relating what appears to be a much larger than normal number of 'nasty surprises' that you seem to have been victim to?. .Like you I am involved in a few non aviation business enterprises one with a turnover in excess of $90million a year. . .My experience is, that whatever business you run, in whatever sector, there is/are always the potential for nasty and unpleasant surprises.. .So, if you accept that, then the impact of these "nasty surprises" will either be . .'great or fatal financial embarrssments' . .i.e. you run your business on the hope that "the only way I can make a bob is for everything to go perfectly". .or. ."a bummer" but not financially fatal. .i.e. you run your business in the realistic expectation that there may be a "nasty surprise" and make provision or take insurance for it.
My old Grandfather (you know the one we all have) who was a pretty succesful contractor (which all GA operators are) worked it out thus.. .You work out your costs based on normal operation and add a margin that reflects the risk and way better than you get at the bank, then you cost your worst nightmare and if it is more than your margin you then make it your "margin". It was invariably about the same if you were applying a reasonable margin that reflected the risks and capital involved.. .In that event if all goes well you make a well deserved profit (you know that 'thing' that business is all about, after depreciation and allowing reserve for equipment replacement with new etc etc ), if the worst happens you wont make a profit but you won't have lost any money either.. .Simple really.. .And if you cant be "competitive" on that basis then you don't have a business, let someone else do their dough and leave your money in the bank.
I know this is teaching you how to suck eggs but I would hope that the many hopefuls out there don't give up and get frightened away by your tales, undoubtedly true and I have seen worse, but not consistent with "normal" ops.
If I was a purveyor of such fine three dimnensional transport vehicles I would not be frightening the children thus. I would be telling them to get some real capital and expert financial advise, or, targeting the properly capitalised and expertly run organisations with well researched and prepared equipment, that reduced to an absolute minimum possible the probability of that "nasty surprise"
The turbine 'hopefuls', those whom I am sure you are trying to protect, should best remain as 'hopefuls' until they have enough real capital to enter the game safely.. .You know, more than enough money to pay the first cuppla months lease and fuel. Because the very carefully worked out overhaul and "nasty surprise" provisions which have been applied in the hourly rate, may well be called up in the first hour of operation. <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> . I have seen that too.
If you are not sufficiently well capitalised, ie the bankers whom you love to hate, are the real shareholders (they hate it when they find that out) then you are not running a business you are running your own Lotto pool.
You are correct in that you get the odd one in the best run fleet, but it it the exception not the rule, which is what you are suggesting.
I think I said it before, you get exactly what you pay for, no more no less. Mutton dressed up as lamb and priced as mutton will always come back and bite you hard.
Capital, capital, capital, real honest to God your own hard won money, is what will force the industry to charge what it really costs, instead of running interesting social experiments with other peoples money. <img src="frown.gif" border="0">
I am perplexed.
I must laud your motive in conveying to the readers that commiting aviation can bring some nasty and unpleasant surprises.. .But cannot fathom why you persist in frightening the life out of everybody by relating what appears to be a much larger than normal number of 'nasty surprises' that you seem to have been victim to?. .Like you I am involved in a few non aviation business enterprises one with a turnover in excess of $90million a year. . .My experience is, that whatever business you run, in whatever sector, there is/are always the potential for nasty and unpleasant surprises.. .So, if you accept that, then the impact of these "nasty surprises" will either be . .'great or fatal financial embarrssments' . .i.e. you run your business on the hope that "the only way I can make a bob is for everything to go perfectly". .or. ."a bummer" but not financially fatal. .i.e. you run your business in the realistic expectation that there may be a "nasty surprise" and make provision or take insurance for it.
My old Grandfather (you know the one we all have) who was a pretty succesful contractor (which all GA operators are) worked it out thus.. .You work out your costs based on normal operation and add a margin that reflects the risk and way better than you get at the bank, then you cost your worst nightmare and if it is more than your margin you then make it your "margin". It was invariably about the same if you were applying a reasonable margin that reflected the risks and capital involved.. .In that event if all goes well you make a well deserved profit (you know that 'thing' that business is all about, after depreciation and allowing reserve for equipment replacement with new etc etc ), if the worst happens you wont make a profit but you won't have lost any money either.. .Simple really.. .And if you cant be "competitive" on that basis then you don't have a business, let someone else do their dough and leave your money in the bank.
I know this is teaching you how to suck eggs but I would hope that the many hopefuls out there don't give up and get frightened away by your tales, undoubtedly true and I have seen worse, but not consistent with "normal" ops.
If I was a purveyor of such fine three dimnensional transport vehicles I would not be frightening the children thus. I would be telling them to get some real capital and expert financial advise, or, targeting the properly capitalised and expertly run organisations with well researched and prepared equipment, that reduced to an absolute minimum possible the probability of that "nasty surprise"
The turbine 'hopefuls', those whom I am sure you are trying to protect, should best remain as 'hopefuls' until they have enough real capital to enter the game safely.. .You know, more than enough money to pay the first cuppla months lease and fuel. Because the very carefully worked out overhaul and "nasty surprise" provisions which have been applied in the hourly rate, may well be called up in the first hour of operation. <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> . I have seen that too.
If you are not sufficiently well capitalised, ie the bankers whom you love to hate, are the real shareholders (they hate it when they find that out) then you are not running a business you are running your own Lotto pool.
You are correct in that you get the odd one in the best run fleet, but it it the exception not the rule, which is what you are suggesting.
I think I said it before, you get exactly what you pay for, no more no less. Mutton dressed up as lamb and priced as mutton will always come back and bite you hard.
Capital, capital, capital, real honest to God your own hard won money, is what will force the industry to charge what it really costs, instead of running interesting social experiments with other peoples money. <img src="frown.gif" border="0">
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RFZ
My most humble apologies for hijacking your thread, I didn't mean too but you know how it is. <img src="frown.gif" border="0">
The recall just seemed relevant to why and what is happening. Hope we have'nt bored your pants off.
My most humble apologies for hijacking your thread, I didn't mean too but you know how it is. <img src="frown.gif" border="0">
The recall just seemed relevant to why and what is happening. Hope we have'nt bored your pants off.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Usually Australia
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NASA
I’m a punter, looking for another aircraft to operate a 1,600 nm daily route with eight or nine sectors. If I didn’t have many years experience operating turbines, and I read your posts on this thread I would be having second thoughts about turbines and probably go out and buy a DC3! Why, because your comments suggest they are not cost effective.
[quote] posted 06 February 2002 13:07
You, like gaunty, torres I feel are living in a dream world...I’m not opposed to the use of turbines, just completely aware of the reality of running them and the cost associated, TODAY
posted 07 February 2002 00:08
it is indeed the cost factor that is the primary reason why operations in Australia do not operate Turbines as opposed to pistons…
I also want the punters out there to be aware of the real cost of operating Turbines, and not to fall for the old . .quote:
The US$150K overhaul cost of the -114A would be the average over three lives (15,000 hrs) and include the cost of HSI's, starter generators and replacement of rotating components.
sorry torres, but that’s a fallacy, and I don’t care how you cut it, it aint going to happen…. . <hr></blockquote>
You may not have used the words ‘not cost effective’ but on your information, and the horrifying figures you quote, the average piston engine operator would think the worst. So I suggest that your intent was to have the reader think exactly that! So please don’t insult my intelligence.
As for looking at a cute little KA100 in Sacramento I would have to say forget it. The US market is full of low time ten or twenty year old Turbines. The first shop visit in this country reveals a multitude of Service Bulletins and AD’s that must be effected before placement on the register. Open the engine and you have another can of worms. It may well be that half the engine components, regardless of condition are time expired or subject to AD’s or SB’s requiring replacement to bring them up to current mod status. Been there, done that and wont get caught again!
I’m a punter, looking for another aircraft to operate a 1,600 nm daily route with eight or nine sectors. If I didn’t have many years experience operating turbines, and I read your posts on this thread I would be having second thoughts about turbines and probably go out and buy a DC3! Why, because your comments suggest they are not cost effective.
[quote] posted 06 February 2002 13:07
You, like gaunty, torres I feel are living in a dream world...I’m not opposed to the use of turbines, just completely aware of the reality of running them and the cost associated, TODAY
posted 07 February 2002 00:08
it is indeed the cost factor that is the primary reason why operations in Australia do not operate Turbines as opposed to pistons…
I also want the punters out there to be aware of the real cost of operating Turbines, and not to fall for the old . .quote:
The US$150K overhaul cost of the -114A would be the average over three lives (15,000 hrs) and include the cost of HSI's, starter generators and replacement of rotating components.
sorry torres, but that’s a fallacy, and I don’t care how you cut it, it aint going to happen…. . <hr></blockquote>
You may not have used the words ‘not cost effective’ but on your information, and the horrifying figures you quote, the average piston engine operator would think the worst. So I suggest that your intent was to have the reader think exactly that! So please don’t insult my intelligence.
As for looking at a cute little KA100 in Sacramento I would have to say forget it. The US market is full of low time ten or twenty year old Turbines. The first shop visit in this country reveals a multitude of Service Bulletins and AD’s that must be effected before placement on the register. Open the engine and you have another can of worms. It may well be that half the engine components, regardless of condition are time expired or subject to AD’s or SB’s requiring replacement to bring them up to current mod status. Been there, done that and wont get caught again!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Caloundra. Qld. Australia
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh well Dragchute/gaunty....I guess you are both correct, and I bow to you infinite intelligence and knowledge [quote]As for looking at a cute little KA100 in Sacramento I would have to say forget it. The US market is full of low time ten or twenty year old Turbines. The first shop visit in this country reveals a multitude of Service Bulletins and AD’s that must be effected before placement on the register. Open the engine and you have another can of worms. It may well be that half the engine components, regardless of condition are time expired or subject to AD’s or SB’s requiring replacement to bring them up to current mod status. Been there, done that and wont get caught again!<hr></blockquote>. . <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ace. .You get that.
I might take issue with some of the others on this utilisation and luxury rate thing, If I may.
The "1000" hrs thing is more likely to be an attempt to make the rate more palatable than a reflection of reality.. .That is having worked out your sums for the year what "number" do you divide this by, to get the hrly rate. For convenience lets call it 'X'.
For Ad Hoc ops 'X' has to be = the number of sorties possible per day * the return trip time.. .In Perth and Darwin, for example this may produce 600 hrs and in Melbourne only 300 due to the nature of the business and relative trip distances. . .Sitting on the ground all day for a 1200nm round trip, is quite different from doing the same for 400nm seems obvious to me.. .So the rate for these areas should be quite different, sadly it does not appear to be so or fully grasped.. .Be very careful in the research, preparation and data on which you calculate 'X'. There be monsters here
For Mining FIFO Ops with some Ad Hoc the number might be higher but only if it possible to get very tightly knit contracts. The problem usually being that they all want to crew change at the same time. Financial incentives are often the only way to mitigate this, but this further dilutes the revenue, back towards square one.
The temptation is then to try to fill the holes up with RPT or somesuch, but that commits you to fly, win lose or draw and again they all want to go in the am and return in the pm, back towards square one again.
Unless of course you have a relatively captive audience or market and go full LCRPT RPT. . .Then it is possible to schedule towards 1000hrs provided the traffic is there or can be developed.. .But there are still the realities of the paek and quiet times. And so on. But NOW we are getting away from square one, where maybe 'X' = 600.
Starting to sound familiar.
So unless you fit the last LCRPT scenario you are being very brave using 'X' =1000
Outside of perhaps Syd and Mel realistic X = 600. 1000 is fairly precarious, the balance representing premium income/profit you deserve for excellent management and promotion.
Re "luxury" rates.. .The use of that language suggests that GA charter ops, FIFO or not, can produce 'passenger mile costs' = to Hi Cap airlines and is the major causal reason for the state of the GA industry today.
This never is or ever was possible in any way even in anybodies wildest dreams unless maybe you resort to the use of some of the junk that is flying around at the moment and that can hardly justify the use of the word "luxury".
Low capacity aircraf RPT and by its nature Ad Hoc charter IS and HAS to be a more expensive method of transport than that available by RPT (see discussion re 'X' above).. .You think twice before you catch a cab unless there is no bus service or your own car is not available or appropriate, do you.? Cabs are in this context a "luxury".
The move to call this business "Air Taxi" in regulatory terms is a very old and reheated concept, it never ever was anything else but. The use of the word airline in an Air Taxi operators name is and alays was seriously misleading.
As long as the industry persists in trying to make the punishment fit the crime, by applying increasingly older and inapproriate aircraft to the market in attempts to match Hi Capacity B747 pax mile costs they will continue to sink into well deserved obscurity.
I might take issue with some of the others on this utilisation and luxury rate thing, If I may.
The "1000" hrs thing is more likely to be an attempt to make the rate more palatable than a reflection of reality.. .That is having worked out your sums for the year what "number" do you divide this by, to get the hrly rate. For convenience lets call it 'X'.
For Ad Hoc ops 'X' has to be = the number of sorties possible per day * the return trip time.. .In Perth and Darwin, for example this may produce 600 hrs and in Melbourne only 300 due to the nature of the business and relative trip distances. . .Sitting on the ground all day for a 1200nm round trip, is quite different from doing the same for 400nm seems obvious to me.. .So the rate for these areas should be quite different, sadly it does not appear to be so or fully grasped.. .Be very careful in the research, preparation and data on which you calculate 'X'. There be monsters here
For Mining FIFO Ops with some Ad Hoc the number might be higher but only if it possible to get very tightly knit contracts. The problem usually being that they all want to crew change at the same time. Financial incentives are often the only way to mitigate this, but this further dilutes the revenue, back towards square one.
The temptation is then to try to fill the holes up with RPT or somesuch, but that commits you to fly, win lose or draw and again they all want to go in the am and return in the pm, back towards square one again.
Unless of course you have a relatively captive audience or market and go full LCRPT RPT. . .Then it is possible to schedule towards 1000hrs provided the traffic is there or can be developed.. .But there are still the realities of the paek and quiet times. And so on. But NOW we are getting away from square one, where maybe 'X' = 600.
Starting to sound familiar.
So unless you fit the last LCRPT scenario you are being very brave using 'X' =1000
Outside of perhaps Syd and Mel realistic X = 600. 1000 is fairly precarious, the balance representing premium income/profit you deserve for excellent management and promotion.
Re "luxury" rates.. .The use of that language suggests that GA charter ops, FIFO or not, can produce 'passenger mile costs' = to Hi Cap airlines and is the major causal reason for the state of the GA industry today.
This never is or ever was possible in any way even in anybodies wildest dreams unless maybe you resort to the use of some of the junk that is flying around at the moment and that can hardly justify the use of the word "luxury".
Low capacity aircraf RPT and by its nature Ad Hoc charter IS and HAS to be a more expensive method of transport than that available by RPT (see discussion re 'X' above).. .You think twice before you catch a cab unless there is no bus service or your own car is not available or appropriate, do you.? Cabs are in this context a "luxury".
The move to call this business "Air Taxi" in regulatory terms is a very old and reheated concept, it never ever was anything else but. The use of the word airline in an Air Taxi operators name is and alays was seriously misleading.
As long as the industry persists in trying to make the punishment fit the crime, by applying increasingly older and inapproriate aircraft to the market in attempts to match Hi Capacity B747 pax mile costs they will continue to sink into well deserved obscurity.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Usually Australia
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty, I fully concur.
The major downfall of GA is its lack of unity. Every operator is pitted against each other in an attempt to . .1. Undercut the opposition; or as Gaunty suggests. .2. Pit against the airlines on a passenger seat cost per mile basis.
G.A. will never compete against the airlines between major city pairs. They will simply be picked off by the airlines converting those ports from waypoints to landings. But regional centres with limited runway capacity are there for the taking. Unless GA adopts some of the tactics of the airlines by capitalising on ‘economies of scale’ it will forever perform as a hobby player. The industry sadly lacks unity. It should form a consortium aimed at buying power, negotiating strength and the advantage of relocating assets to benefit demand.
I have no doubt that sooner or later the regulator will insist upon the sidelining of old equipment. Just like most cabs and busses are sidelined, as early as five years in some instances. Such a direction would be the catalyst for a rebirth of our industry.
The old technology out there deprives travellers of the safety and operators of economics developed in recent times. These include engine reliability and fuel efficiency, avionics/instrument packages that enhance safety, improved performance and reliability that reduce operating costs.
Major companies and governments are rethinking the safety of the GA industry and moving towards other forms of transport to avoid serious risk management repercussions.
The new trend with manufacturers is to produce aircraft with five years warranty on both vendor and non-vendor components. Turbine engine manufacturers are gearing towards three year/3,000 hour warranties and 5,000 hour TBO’s. Some avionics suites carry a five-year warranty and have done for several years. But still we persevere with thirty-year old corrosion buckets.
Power by the hour has been around for some time on engines and at least one manufacturer offers an hourly pay-as-you-go parts program for airframe components. The latter is extremely beneficial to operators as aircraft are maintained in top condition ensuring excellent resale. Worn tyres or a gyro problem are fixed long before the canvas starts to show or an IMC incident occurs. Manufacturers will also operate a tracking system in conjunction with the parts scheme. When a service falls due a box of ‘O’ rings, seals, filters, lockwire and any spares needed will arrive at your service centre – beats the hell out of paying the 25% parts mark-up charged by many service providers.
A consortium of operators should be in a position to achieve lower financing and insurance costs, better prices by fleet purchasing, cheaper maintenance and steer prices back towards where they should be at for charter and LCRPT. Such a consortium would be in a better position to negotiate mining contracts or on-carriage with the airlines. A united front would generate greater power in dealing with the regulators.
The present industry is pulling in a dozen different directions and an easy target for the airlines who stamp out any possibility of a success. Look at the number of regionals taken over by Ansett and Qantas – their names disappearing into oblivion.
[ 14 February 2002: Message edited by: dragchute ]</p>
The major downfall of GA is its lack of unity. Every operator is pitted against each other in an attempt to . .1. Undercut the opposition; or as Gaunty suggests. .2. Pit against the airlines on a passenger seat cost per mile basis.
G.A. will never compete against the airlines between major city pairs. They will simply be picked off by the airlines converting those ports from waypoints to landings. But regional centres with limited runway capacity are there for the taking. Unless GA adopts some of the tactics of the airlines by capitalising on ‘economies of scale’ it will forever perform as a hobby player. The industry sadly lacks unity. It should form a consortium aimed at buying power, negotiating strength and the advantage of relocating assets to benefit demand.
I have no doubt that sooner or later the regulator will insist upon the sidelining of old equipment. Just like most cabs and busses are sidelined, as early as five years in some instances. Such a direction would be the catalyst for a rebirth of our industry.
The old technology out there deprives travellers of the safety and operators of economics developed in recent times. These include engine reliability and fuel efficiency, avionics/instrument packages that enhance safety, improved performance and reliability that reduce operating costs.
Major companies and governments are rethinking the safety of the GA industry and moving towards other forms of transport to avoid serious risk management repercussions.
The new trend with manufacturers is to produce aircraft with five years warranty on both vendor and non-vendor components. Turbine engine manufacturers are gearing towards three year/3,000 hour warranties and 5,000 hour TBO’s. Some avionics suites carry a five-year warranty and have done for several years. But still we persevere with thirty-year old corrosion buckets.
Power by the hour has been around for some time on engines and at least one manufacturer offers an hourly pay-as-you-go parts program for airframe components. The latter is extremely beneficial to operators as aircraft are maintained in top condition ensuring excellent resale. Worn tyres or a gyro problem are fixed long before the canvas starts to show or an IMC incident occurs. Manufacturers will also operate a tracking system in conjunction with the parts scheme. When a service falls due a box of ‘O’ rings, seals, filters, lockwire and any spares needed will arrive at your service centre – beats the hell out of paying the 25% parts mark-up charged by many service providers.
A consortium of operators should be in a position to achieve lower financing and insurance costs, better prices by fleet purchasing, cheaper maintenance and steer prices back towards where they should be at for charter and LCRPT. Such a consortium would be in a better position to negotiate mining contracts or on-carriage with the airlines. A united front would generate greater power in dealing with the regulators.
The present industry is pulling in a dozen different directions and an easy target for the airlines who stamp out any possibility of a success. Look at the number of regionals taken over by Ansett and Qantas – their names disappearing into oblivion.
[ 14 February 2002: Message edited by: dragchute ]</p>
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YEAH YEAH, I've heard it all before. The only problem is .... HUMAN NATURE. Until we have applied total unbending legislation such as in the TAXI industry, ie; changing vehicle every 5 years, nothing will ever change. End of story.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From my perspective, I would have to agree with Grogmonster, as the line being spun by gaunty, Torres, dragchute, snide remark et al, falls a little flat just by taking a look at GA in Australia. <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
After all, if it's that easy, why isn't it being done, but then again, it's easy to sit back and talk about it, or put it down on paper to prove how easy it is, but a different matter when it comes to applying the theory to practice <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
After all, if it's that easy, why isn't it being done, but then again, it's easy to sit back and talk about it, or put it down on paper to prove how easy it is, but a different matter when it comes to applying the theory to practice <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grogmonster
Re Taxi industry 5 year limit legislation etc.
We agree that's the answer, but every time that's been tried, the hugh and cry from the "busted arse" brigade wailing civil rights, nuclear winter, fading blinds, discrimination against left handed lesbian whales and such becomes deafening.
Of course they also get the communities on side with the old "those bastards are trying to rip youse off" routine. Thus condemning said communities to third world services.
We DO know of which we speak, have all operated new equipment profitably and succesfully (some still do) against said "busted arse" brigade.
It can and is being done, TODAY, without legislation, it is a bit harder than it needs be, but their clients are prepared to pay for what they need to satisfy their duty of care. . .The recent accident will soon raise this in a fairly vigorous manner.
The rest are on their way to obscurity faster than they know. If the liquidators don't get em the civil courts will.
Re Taxi industry 5 year limit legislation etc.
We agree that's the answer, but every time that's been tried, the hugh and cry from the "busted arse" brigade wailing civil rights, nuclear winter, fading blinds, discrimination against left handed lesbian whales and such becomes deafening.
Of course they also get the communities on side with the old "those bastards are trying to rip youse off" routine. Thus condemning said communities to third world services.
We DO know of which we speak, have all operated new equipment profitably and succesfully (some still do) against said "busted arse" brigade.
It can and is being done, TODAY, without legislation, it is a bit harder than it needs be, but their clients are prepared to pay for what they need to satisfy their duty of care. . .The recent accident will soon raise this in a fairly vigorous manner.
The rest are on their way to obscurity faster than they know. If the liquidators don't get em the civil courts will.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: North son, I say go North..........
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without reading the last few posts.
The simple problem in Darwin is that people put Turbines out WAY TO CHEAP and this SCREWS it for everyone.
One cannot validate getting a C208 when you have to compete with a METRO 3 @$1200-$1500 per hour. The C208 just would not win any freight work. Lets look at hitting the Conquest market again, King Air 200's and C2's go out way cheap!!!.
In an environment where you charge $450 per hour for a C210 and $850 per hour for a PA31-350 surely the min rate any turbine should go out at is $1500 per hour. But this does not happen.
So until people pull their head out of the sand and charge what should be charged - its pistons for me.....
HA.
p.s. Since Dec we coped a 300% increase in landing fees and I have not noticed an specific increase in rates. Yippee, anyone got a grader? a parrallel stip to 29/11 should work, between the HWY and the airport fence.....
p.p.s. Back to the original topic, thanks to the SB I am 3 weeks without the PA31-350..... Just lucky there was a crank in Aus.
The simple problem in Darwin is that people put Turbines out WAY TO CHEAP and this SCREWS it for everyone.
One cannot validate getting a C208 when you have to compete with a METRO 3 @$1200-$1500 per hour. The C208 just would not win any freight work. Lets look at hitting the Conquest market again, King Air 200's and C2's go out way cheap!!!.
In an environment where you charge $450 per hour for a C210 and $850 per hour for a PA31-350 surely the min rate any turbine should go out at is $1500 per hour. But this does not happen.
So until people pull their head out of the sand and charge what should be charged - its pistons for me.....
HA.
p.s. Since Dec we coped a 300% increase in landing fees and I have not noticed an specific increase in rates. Yippee, anyone got a grader? a parrallel stip to 29/11 should work, between the HWY and the airport fence.....
p.p.s. Back to the original topic, thanks to the SB I am 3 weeks without the PA31-350..... Just lucky there was a crank in Aus.